The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter n Volume 20, Number 3 2005

Conservation

The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter

Volume 20, Number 3 2005

The J. Paul Getty Trust Barry Munitz President and Chief Executive Officer

The Getty Conservation Institute Timothy P. Whalen Director Jeanne Marie Teutonico Associate Director, Programs Kathleen Gaines Assistant Director, Administration Kristin Kelly Assistant Director, Dissemination and Research Resources

Giacomo Chiari Chief Scientist Franois LeBlanc Head of Field Projects

Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter Jeffrey Levin Editor Angela Escobar Assistant Editor Joe Molloy Graphic Designer Color West Lithography Inc. Lithography

The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) works internationally to advance the field of conservation through scientific research, field projects, education and training, and the dissemination of information in various media. In its programs, the GCI focuses on the creation and delivery of knowledge that will benefit the professionals and organizations responsible for the conservation of the visual arts. The GCI is a program of the J. Paul Getty Trust, an international cultural and philanthropic institution devoted to the visual arts that also includes the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Getty Research Institute, and the Getty Foundation.

Conservation, The Getty Conservation Institute Newsletter, is distributed free of charge three times per year, to professionals in conservation and related fields and to members of the public concerned about conservation. Back issues of the newsletter, as well as additional information regarding the activities of the GCI, can be found in the Conservation section of the Gettys Web site. www.getty.edu

Front cover: Participants in the ICCROM-GCI 2005 advanced course in documentation, held in Rome. This four-week course for midcareer professionals and educators addressed the needs, methodology, and techniques for acquiring and using records, inventories, and information management tools for the conservation of cultural heritage. Photo: Alejandro Alva/Courtesy of ICCROM.

The Getty Conservation Institute 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1684 USA Tel 310 440 7325 Fax 310 440 7702

2005 J. Paul Getty Trust

Documenting Our Past for the Future

By Franois LeBlanc and Rand Eppich
Today the world is losing its architectural and archaeological cultural heritage faster than it can be documented. Human-caused disasters, such as war and uncontrolled development, are major culprits. Natural disasters, neglect, and inappropriate conservation are also among the reasons that our heritage is vanishing. In Afghanistan we have lost to armed conflict archaeological remains and architecture for which we have limited or no documentation. At the January 2004 annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, Abdul Wasey Feroozi, director general of Afghanistans National Institute of Archaeology, reported on the impact of war upon his countrys cultural heritage. Among the places destroyed in recent decades, in addition to the giant Buddha statues in Bamiyan, were the Buddhist temple of Tepe Shutur-eHadda and the tower of Chakari, an important monument from the first century. In a war-stricken country, stated Feroozi, one can repair or even renovate roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, et cetera, but lost and destroyed cultural heritage can never be rehabilitated or renovated. Contemporary urban developments can also wipe out centuries of unrecorded history. On the outskirts of Mexico City, the pre-Columbian Aztec site of Xochimilco is under threat because of urban sprawl; information from earlier periods of history is likely to be lost with rapid modern construction. In sites such as this, it is possible to use the latest technology to record information about the archaeological remains, either to capture the knowledge before construction proceeds or to alter the course of development. This happens too rarely. And what of Mother Nature? At the end of August 2005, along the U.S. coast of the Gulf of Mexico, the city of New Orleans and other historic cities and towns were savaged by Hurricane Katrina. In addition to the tragic and extensive loss of life, the hurricane damaged or destroyed countless historic structures, public

The archway of the Canaanite gate in Tel Dan, Israel, with descriptive overlay highlighting the arch. Without proper documentation, it is almost impossible to distinguish the mud brick arch from the surrounding earth. Documentation work also enabled archaeologists to date the arch accurately, demonstrating that this construction technology existed far earlier than previously thought. Photo and overlay: Rand Eppich.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Feature

Feature

Defining Documentation

Documentation of cultural heritage, broadly defined, includes two main activities: (1) the capture of information regarding monuments, buildings, and sites, including their physical characteristics, history, and problems; and (2) the process of organizing, interpreting, and managing that information. Reasons for engaging in documentation include: assessing the values and significance of the heritage in question; guiding the process of conservation; providing a tool for monitoring and managing heritage while creating an essential record; and communicating the character and importance of heritage. Archaeological sites oVer good examples of how documentation contributes to heritage conservation. Partial foundations, incomplete walls, and scattered debris found at an excavation can make it diYcult to interpret. In northern Israel at the archaeological site of Tel Dan, there is one of the earliest known examples of a complete arch, the archway of the Canaanite gatedated to the middle Bronze Age (mid-eighteenth century bce). Without proper documentation by archaeologists and surveyors, it is almost imposEnglish Heritage staff conducting a photogrammetric survey of the exterior of Windsor Castle. Documentation can provide a lasting record of cultural heritageessential for conservation or recovery from an unforeseen catastrophic loss. When a disastrous fire in 1992 destroyed much of Windsors St. Georges Hall and Grand Reception Room, English Heritage was able to use photographic documentation taken years earlier, as well as new material, to guide restoration work. Photo: Courtesy of English Heritage, with acknowledgment of the Royal Household at Windsor Castle.

sible to distinguish the mud brick arch from the similarly colored surrounding earth. Proper documentation has also enabled archaeologists to date the arch accurately, demonstrating that this building technology existed far earlier than previously thoughtthus according the site greater significance. Good documentation of a site allows for a better understanding of its valuehistorical, scientific, aesthetic, social, and economic. Recognition of a sites value and significance is often the first step toward its conservation. Once conservation begins, those involved in the process need access to comprehensive information about the site. This informationobtained through documentationallows conservation professionals to record current conditions, consider appropriate conservation options, plan interventions, apply treatments, and, finally, measure the results of their eVorts. In 2001 a team from the University of Pennsylvanias Graduate Program in Historic Preservation did just that at New Orleanss historic St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 (which reportedly survived the citys flooding with relatively minor damage). Each above-ground tomb was evaluated for its original design, date of construction, state of conservation, and subsequent changes and repairs. This information led to emergency stabilization, to preliminary treatment, and, eventually, to conservation. It also allowed the limited resources available to be directed toward those monuments that were both significant and in advanced states of deterioration. Good documentation saves both time and money by helping prioritize resources and by preventing a duplication of eVort.

and private, altering forever the architectural landscape of the communities that suVered under the force of the storm. Although the impact on the regions cultural heritage is still being assessed, significant damage clearly occurred, including the eradication of some historic cityscapes. The stories go on, year after year, decade after decade. Unfortunately, so does the loss of cultural heritage for which we have little or no lasting record. While we should strive to preserve as much as possible of our architectural and archaeological cultural heritage, we cannot save everything. One option is to document heritage before it is lost. A permanent record will transmit knowledge of these places to future generations. Equally important, documentation is the thread that runs through the entire process of cultural heritage conservation. Indeed, documentation can help keep heritage from being destroyed or forgotten, and it serves to communicate, not only to conservation professionals but to the public at large, the character, value, and significance of the heritage.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Feature

After conservation intervention, documentation provides the basis for monitoring, management, and routine maintenance of a site, as well as a record for posterity. A record of interventions is indispensable for conservation treatment, as it establishes baseline conditions that inform future evaluations and retreatments. Heritage sites undergo continuous change, and the availability of a concise description of previous problems and interventions makes it easier to identify emergency situations and to react with appropriate investigation and treatment. It also allows managers to budget for ongoing conservation needs. In addition, actions taken today become part of a places history; future generations must know how conservation was carried out. Conservation interventions are critical moments in the life of a building or site, and a careful record can preserve information that may otherwise be lost. For example, during a 1985 project to upgrade the electrical wiring in Windsor Castle, photographic documentation of the State Apartments was conducted. When a disastrous fire in 1992 destroyed much of St. Georges Hall and the Grand Reception Room, English Heritage was able to use this documentation to help guide subsequent restoration work. The importance of documentation extends beyond its use as a tool for conservation and a record for posterity. It is also the means by which information can be communicatedinformation that can help educate the public regarding the values a site holds and the ways in which conservation has been conducted. Communication from the public can also impact the conservation of a site and is, therefore, an important element of documentation. In the city of Vienna, for example, the public contributes to the citys conservation via the Internet by submitting information that defines or increases the historic value of certain properties. In many instances, the public is the first to raise the alarm about sites that are under threat from alteration or demolition.
What Is Needed

Historic and Artistic Works. The speakers at that meeting generally concurred that the field lacks standards and guidelines, as well as communication among professionals. They also agreed that there are limited resources, incomplete tools, and insuYcient training. Few international standards for recording and documentation of cultural heritage are in place. Conservation documentation varies in form, quality, and quantity from one project and professional to the next. If there were international standards for the recording of conditions such as the identification of cracks, bulges, humidity, or other unstable conditions, then professionals could communicate more easily, saving both time and money. Even the format for dates is unresolved. The International Standards Organization format for dates (yyyy/mm/dd) has yet to be adopted by the conservation field. One can easily understand the importance of such a basic standard in a world of databases. Background research prepared by historians and investigation plans developed by conservation architects, if standardized, could be used more easily by other professionals to prepare treatments and architectural proposals. Currently, the symbols used to draw diVerent materials, various conditions, and subsequent treatments are left to individual professionals. While other disciplines have such

A conservator conducting a condition survey of the carved face of the stone blocks that compose the hieroglyphic stairway at the Maya site of Copn in Honduras. The capture of information regarding monuments, buildings, and sitesincluding their physical characteristics, history, and problems and the management, interpretation, and presentation of that information are the main activities of documentation. Photo: Elsa Bourguignon.

How is the process of documentation embraced internationally? The short answer isnot well at all. Although the importance of documentation for cultural heritage has been stressed in many national and international instrumentsfrom the Athens Charter of 1931 to the Venice Charter of 1964 to Australias Burra Charter, as well as dozens of other recent declarations and conventions documentation remains inadequately employed. In 2002 the Getty Conservation Institute convened a meeting of experts in Los Angeles to discuss documentation. Among the thirty international participants representing various disciplines and regions, there was general agreement that the situation required review and improvement. There was similar consensus at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Institute for Conservation of
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Feature

Survey of Shuxiang Temple at the Chengde Imperial Summer Mountain Resort in northeast China. The GCI has provided training to Chinese professionals in the use of the theodolite to map the temple complex as part of the development of a conservation and management plan for the Chengde site. Photo: Neville Agnew.

As part of a UNESCO World Heritage Centre training program in Saqqra, Egypt, Gaetano Palumbo, director of archaeological conservation with the World Monuments Fund, shows a trainee how to capture an image that can be digitally rectified. Low-cost and low-tech tools and methodologies, such as scaled and semi-rectified photography, could satisfy a significant portion of the recording and documentation needs in many developing countries. Photo: Rand Eppich.

basic standards, the field of heritage conservation, in which projects are often seen as unique, does not. In fact, there is a great deal of commonality in conservation, and some standardization would help. Conservation management guidelines exist, but few of these refer to the importance of recording and documentation as activities that exist throughout the conservation process. Knowledge and understanding are prerequisites for good heritage management and for the planning of sensitive and appropriate conservation interventions. Documentation is the medium through which this knowledge is recorded, collected, and stored. Without guidelines, communication is more diYcult. Currently, best practices for documentation are not widely exchanged inside the conservation field. There are few international periodicals or Web sites that allow experts to share their knowledge. In addition, less than satisfactory levels of human and financial resources are dedicated to documentation activities. Outside the field, decision makers are often unaware of the purposes and benefits of documentation, and therefore, they underfund it. If these benefits were more eVectively communicated, greater resources could be allocated, and duplication of work could be reduced, decreasing the cost of conservation. Such additional recording would provide better understanding of the resource, its features, and its condition, and would increase knowledge about it. The result would be a higher quality of conservation practice. There is a good array of low-cost recording tools and methodologies that are not being systematically applied in the conservation field. In addition, new information is not widely shared, and many Web resources concerning recording and documentation of cultural
 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Feature

heritage are not generally known. There is a need to make greater use of low-cost and low-tech tools and methodologies that could satisfy a significant portion of the recording and documentation needs in many developing countries. For example, simple scaled and semi-rectified photography of relatively flat surfaces (e.g., floor mosaics, building elevations, stone patterns, etc.) can be achieved with an inexpensive digital camera that has a grid integrated into its viewer, or with other simple equipment or techniques used in conjunction with the camera. The relatively low level of accuracy produced by these methods is acceptable for preliminary recording or uncomplicated conservation work. There is also an urgent need to develop and adapt computer technologies and advanced technological tools to help deal with the sheer number of sites, buildings, collections, and information that need to be preserved. New technologies can certainly help reduce the cost and time necessary to record and document cultural heritage. At the same time, significant research and investigation are required to ensure that the digital record created by these new technologies is preserved in the long term, given the constantly changing technological environment. While a growing number of information users are requesting training in documentation, there are only a handful of institutions that oVer courses in this field. The amount of knowledge needed to document historic resources adequately is substantial. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, institutions in the world currently oVering this comprehensive training specifically for conservation.

What Is to Be Done

ing metric surveys, created standards for requesting laser scanning services, and developed new software to help with recording buildings and sites. The Forum on Information Standards in Heritage groups together U.K. and Irish institutions that are working on creating standards. These eVorts will help create consistent records and find the tools to index and retrieve heritage information. Last, several training initiatives have been conducted by international heritage organizations. In 2003 and 2005, iccrom held advanced courses in documentation for midcareer professionals and educators from around the world. These four-week courses covered simple techniques, such as hand measurements, and more high-tech methods, including global positioning system (gps) technology and photogrammetry (obtaining reliable measurements by photography). unescos World Heritage Centre also held documentation courses in 2004 for participants from Arab countries. The World Monuments Fund and the gci have been conducting a series of training courses to assist the Iraqis in mitigating threats and in repairing damage sustained by their cultural heritage during war. A large part of this program is recording the damage and threats to sites, in order to prioritize interventions, given the limited resources available (see page 17). Even with these organizations and their eVorts, significant challenges still exist. The sheer number of cultural sites that are without suYcient documentation is staggering. Some estimate that only a third of the eight hundred sites on the World Heritage List are adequately documented. Certain situations, such as underwater archaeology and cultural landscapes, pose new issues and challenges. We cannot stop the loss of cultural heritage. But we can do a better job of documenting heritage. When conflicts, disasters, and uncontrolled development occur, the only remaining evidence of the lost heritage is often documentation. By creating standards and guidelines, dedicating additional resources, developing new tools, and increasing training eVorts, we can begin to do a better job at highlighting the heritage that we have and increase the possibility that eVorts will be taken to save it. It is a challenging missionbut not an impossible one.
Franois LeBlanc is head of Field Projects for the GCI. Rand Eppich, a project specialist with Field Projects, manages the GCIs Digital Laboratory.

Despite the many problems in the documentation field, there are institutions and organizations working toward improvement in each of these areas. cipa Heritage Documentationthe International Committee for Architectural Photogrammetryhas held biennial meetings for several decades and has published the results of these meetings in order to improve various aspects of recording and documentation. The symposiums theme in 2005 was international cooperation to save the worlds cultural heritage. It was intended to underscore the concept that only international cooperation between public and private endeavors can provide eVective solutions to safeguard and preserve cultural heritage for future generations. In 2002 cipa, icomos, and the gci teamed up to create the Recordim Initiative. One goal of this five-year partnership is to develop principles and guidelines for creating and using heritage documentation. The initiative and its publications are designed to aid communication among information users (e.g., researchers, conservation specialists, and project managers) and information providers (e.g., photographers, heritage recorders, photogrammetrists, and surveyors). It is also intended to assist decision makers in governments, institutions, and education to adopt and follow principles and guidelines. One planned publication for practicing conservators, architects, and engineers will include case studies that illustrate the availability and application of a wide variety of tools. There are other initiatives and organizations working toward better guidelines, standards, and communication. Among them is the International Council on Archives, which met in the United Arab Emirates in November 2005 to discuss issues such as electronic records, the preservation of archival records, and education and training. arma International, a leading authority on managing records and information, continues to oVer resources such as legislative and regulatory updates, standards and best practices, technology trends and applications, classroom and Web-based education, marketplace news and analysis, and books and videos on managing records and information. English Heritage, the custodian of cultural heritage in England, has also put resources into developing new tools for documentation. In addition, it has published a manual for perform-

Web Links to Selected Institutions and Organizations Involved in Documentation cipa Heritage Documentation | The International Committee for Architectural Photogrammetry | cipa.icomos.org The International Council on Archives | www.ica.org arma International | www.arma.org/index.cfm English Heritage | www.english-heritage.org.uk The Forum on Information Standards in Heritage | www.fish-forum.info The Recordim Initiative | A Project of cipa, icomos, and the gci | www.getty.edu/conservation/field_projects/recordim/index.html
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Feature

People and Technology

A Discussion about Heritage Documentation
Dialogue
How does one define documentation in the context of cultural heritage? What are the critical elements in undertaking documentation that can help ensure its effectiveness before, during, and after conservation? Three experts who have extensively produced or utilized documentation offer their perspectives on this somewhat overlooked aspect of the conservation process. Alonzo C. Addison is president of the Virtual Heritage Network and currently serves as special advisor to the director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, guiding technology deployment for the heritage arena and for UNESCOs World Heritage portal. He founded the Center for Design Visualization at the University of California, Berkeley, and in the early 1990s he helped create the first high-accuracy long-range laser scanner as vice president of Cyra Technologies (now Leica Geosystems). Paul Bryan is the head of the Photogrammetric Unit of English Heritage, and the leader of the Metric Survey team. Prior to joining English Heritage in 1985, he spent several years working on surveying contracts in the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Kuwait. Based in York, Paul is an active member of the U.K. Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society (RSPSoc), as well as the U.K. representative for CIPA Heritage Documentation, the ICOMOS and ISPRS International Committee for Architectural Photogrammetry. Werner Schmid is a freelance conservator of mural paintings and related architectural surfaces, practicing mainly in Italy. From 1990 to 2000, he worked as a project manager at ICCROM, supervising a variety of efforts, including training courses and technical meetings. While at ICCROM, he coordinated the research seminar GraDocGraphic Documentation Systems in Mural Painting Conservationand was the editor of the proceedings, which were published in 2001. They spoke with Rand Eppich, a GCI project specialist who manages the Institutes Digital Laboratory, and Jeffrey Levin, editor of Conservation, The GCI Newsletter. Jeffrey Levin: How would each of you, in a concise way, define documentation? Werner Schmid: For me, documentation is the knowledge base that reflects our current understanding of the heritage itself. It includes all the published and unpublished information, both visual and textual. Our understanding of the heritage is under constant revision, and as new information comes in, the documentation of the heritage grows and develops over time. In terms of activity, documentation means the recording of new information that comes from conservation and research activities that are dedicated to a given heritage. It is certainly a multidisciplinary activity, which consists of research, recording, evaluating, interpreting, correlating, archiving, managing, and disseminating information. It involves written reports, surveys, photographic records, and the establishment of digital databases that try to make all relevant information accessible in one place. I see documentation as a medium through which the results of research and conservation activities are communicated and shared when a project is under way, but also in the future. As such, documentation has an essential position within conservation and research and is a reference for all involved in these processes. Paul Bryan: I concur. Within my particular context, documentation involves creating supporting records for a project, which assists in monitoring, understanding, and conservation. In terms of the actual activities, that includes metric surveys in various analog and digital forms, which describe the spatial relationships of a building or place. As mentioned, documentation also includes photography analog and digitalhistorical analysis, both architectural and archaeological, previously published works, and, of course, the actual conservation analysis and the treatments themselves. Alonzo C. Addison: Are we talking about documentation as a noun the documentationor as a verb, to document? Levin: I think were talking about both.
10 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

Whatever is produced by recording certainly must be usable in the immediate sense, but to justify the time and cost, it needs to have a longer-term use as well. Paul Bryan
Addison: I think to document something is to bring together all of the knowledge about that object, that cultural heritage, into one place. The most basic is the dimensional documentation, the measurement of an object, the recording of it. With the advent of digital technologies, it has become easier to document and easier to integrate the many forms of documentation. We now can go from the traditional dimensional to the locational and the visual and, finally, to what I call the environmental, which is all the other scientific measurements. In addition to that, there is all the knowledge, the history, and so on about cultural heritage that we want to include in that knowledge base. Schmid: I tried in my first answer to give a more general definition of documentation, including all written and visual information. Many people think documentation is mainly about the dimensional representation of the physical configuration of a heritage. But this is just one part of the documentation. Addison: Its good to define it in the broader sense. Dimensional documentation, which is what many documentation and recording professionals think of when they talk about documentation, may work well for a physical object such as an existing historic building in Europe, where you can utilize tools from analog to visuala tape measure, survey equipment, a laser scanner, or even a camera to capture the dimensions. But thats a very diVerent sort of documentation than trying to capture Aboriginal cultural heritage in Australia, where you have much less physical presence and you need to rely on stories and imagery and other elements. Rand Eppich: Werner, maybe you can comment on documentation as applied toward conservation.

Schmid: Conservation documentation is certainly all the information that is needed to plan conservationto understand, first of all, the heritage, which is a prerequisite for starting any project planning then all the information that is necessary to identify the problems and to understand the materials, the physical evidence. Conservation itself is an opportunity to review the history and knowledge we have of a heritageso it is very important to record and to document all new discoveries that arise during a conservation treatment. The documentation of the condition after treatment is also very important for any future evaluation of the treatment. Documentation always has this dimension of before, during, and after. Levin: Are any of those more important than the others? Do they all have equal importance? Bryan: Each project is diVerent. I try to promote people discussing more than the immediate project requirements. Whatever is produced by recording certainly must be usable in the immediate sense, but to justify the time and cost, it needs to have a longer-term use as well. Im sometimes concerned that the level of documentation for projects is far too large for the immediate requirements that there are several volumes of documentation produced, which may perhaps go into a cabinet simply to gather dust. That cant be allowed to happen, so weve got to look at the longer-term use of the documentation. Addison: That alludes to a fundamental problema lot of the documentation isnt documented. If you dont document the documentation, let alone deal with how to preserve it in the media that youve recorded it in, is the entire eVort useless? In the digital world I see this enormously. People take a digital photo of something, but unless they mark exactly what they took the picture of, it could be useless. The amount of eVort to decode that piece of documentation becomes so large that its easier and cheaper to send somebody back to redo it.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

Photo: Courtesy of English Heritage

11

Its important that we dont forget that documentation isnt just for the conservation community but serves a much broader public need.
Alonzo C. Addison

In talking about the purposes that documentation serves, I think were missing a whole category of things. Documentation is also the basis of everything that goes into disseminationpresentations, education, television documentaries, games that help children learn. Documentation serves those purposeswhich, in turn, help the conservation process because it makes the public more aware. Its important that we dont forget that documentation isnt just for the conservation community but serves a much broader public needwhich, in turn, helps conservation because it raises awareness and money. Bryan: In England, we talk about the virtuous circle, a cycle that starts with understanding the historic environment. Once people understand it, they start to value itand if they value it, theyll start to care for it. That caring will actually lead people to enjoy the heritageand once they enjoy it, then there will be a desire for more understanding about it. So, yes, the products of documentation are needed not only to preserve, prepare, record, and represent but also to disseminate and present. Schmid: I agree that good documentation can provide material that can be also used for educational purposes and promotion. But this information must be processed and expressed in diVerent ways if its targeted to nonspecialists. Eppich: Paul, does English Heritage have a way to do this when a project begins? Do they have a formal protocol to sit down and say, we want these products at the end? Bryan: It tends to vary from project to project. One issue that were currently facing is that while were not moving away from conservation, the current priority seems to be on the understanding of the heritageand if youre just focused on understanding, that can alter the level of recording that you need to undertake.

Schmid: The most frequent answer to the question of why documentation? is to create a permanent record, a sort of warranty against loss. This is based on a realistic view that we cannot preserve everything and that much of our heritage will be a victim of modern development, wars, or natural disasters. Levin: To create a permanent record is, of course, to beg the question of what the nature or character of that record should be. Is the field generally missing a clearly stated understanding of what the standards and the process should be when one undertakes documentation? Addison: People are quite savvy, but the problem is changing projects and changing needs. Perhaps its not as much standards as it is better definitions and better guidelines. For example, if you take a digital photo, there are pieces of the knowledge base that need to be attached to that photo: who took the photo, on what date, and with what device, a description of what youre documenting, why, and other metadata. I prefer the idea of guidelines to the idea of standards, which is an area that the Getty can help with. Eppich: Arent some guidelines out there, but theyre just not used? I know there are guidelines for photography. But how do you get people to use them? How do you enforce them? Addison: Its training and education. The problem is that we have experts in many subareas. Professional photographers are pretty good about marking up their photos and cataloging them when theyre in the field. But a heritage recording expert who may be trained in the use of the theodolite doesnt know about that piece of it. I think its just training and guidance, maybe, disseminated through international organizations. Standards can backfire because people are very resistant and because they take so long to get everyones agreement that by the time that they are agreed upon, theyre obsolete.

12

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

Photo: Jeremy Pollard

Addison: I used to think that there was limited access to tools. Weve been working with unesco, looking at information technology and disseminating it, and our assumption was that in the developing world people dont have Internet access or they have slower access, and they dont have digital cameras. But we were surprised. Its almost the reverse. They have Internet access in the developing world thats typically pretty goodit may be in a caf instead of at home, but statistics on browsers being used, processors, and operating system levels are impressive. To me, its not as much a problem of access to tools but, rather, what we do with the tools we have. You can have the fanciest tool in the world, but if you dont use it to record useful things or dont put the metadata on the recording, its still worthless. A lot of people talk about getting all these tools to the developing world. More important, I think, is one hard-coated sheet Bryan: English Heritage has been generating standards in our field for a number of years. However, they cannot just sit on a shelf to be referred to year after year. To maintain their currency, they need to be continually updated, so that when new technology, like laser scanning, comes along, it can be eVectively integrated into the process. Standards take an enormous amount of time and eVort to collate, but when nonspecialists want to know how to specify a measured survey, for example, the necessary detail of the document may simply put them oV. Its a diYcult area, but standards, whether we like them or not, eVectively underpin all of the work that we do. This is an area where I see the Getty being well placednot to generate standards but to provide guidelines on how standards ought to be developed and maintained across the heritage sector. Schmid: As an information technology user, I think that conservation and documentation are case-by-case issues and that its very diYcult to define detailed standards for the field. I agree that whats really missing are guidelines. A very hot issue that has developed with the advent of computer technology in heritage documentation is that we have, on one side, a segment of rather computer-illiterate conservation professionals and, on the other side, information technology specialists trying to sell their products. Guidelines are needed that give technology users some information on the basic functioning of these tools and that explain the pros and cons and the costs. The users have to have enough information to be able to choose the method that best matches their needs and to be able to communicate with information technology specialists in a more productive way. Levin: What about the issue of access to tools? Tools that are available in one part of the world may be much less available in another part, yet the need for documentation is no less. that states, this is the metadata that you should attach, whether you do it by hand or otherwise. Often when I lecture, I give a time line: stone lasts thousands of years, wood and paper hundreds of years, and digital mediacd, magnetic tapetens of years. Even worse than the medium is the format: how its encoded on the software. This lasts in the single digits at most. That seems to me the fundamental problem. Getting advanced tools into developing countries is important. But more fundamental is getting them guidelines. Bryan: Rather than shipping new technology to developing areas of the world, the emphasis ought to be on making them aware of what the technology can and cannot do. This goes back to putting together some guidelines on what diVerent technologies can do. The issue of people in developing countries not being able to get hold of a personal computer or access to the Internet is not going away, but its certainly diminishing. More important is an appreciation by people of what is available and what technology can do for them. Once they see that, then maybe eVorts from countries like ours can help provide them with access to some of that technology. Schmid: Laser scanning is probably the most detailed measured survey tool, but in most cases there are alternative methods. I would rather ask what is the need in a particular recording project, and what are the options that we have to respond to that need? It might not be only a laser scanner. In countries where the workforce is less expensive than equipment, they could do it with hand measurements and come up with a similarly valuable result. Bryan: Were applying close-range laser scanning on some of our projectsbut not on every single one. On some projects weve even got nonspecialists who want to generate data themselves. Here imaging is probably a more eVective tool that could be used by the majority of people, where all they really need is a hundred-dollar digital camera.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

13

One of the huge potentials that new information technologies and information management tools offer us is a better way to communicate and share our results.
Werner Schmid

Schmid: Rectified photography is in many cases more than suYcientand its simpler and cheaper. Bryan: Im currently involved in a rock art recording project, where were using volunteers who do not necessarily have a survey background but share a common interest in rock art and have some spare time. Were using laser scanning, where its appropriate, at some of the larger, priority sites, but the majority of recording is being done by the volunteers themselves using handheld digital cameras. That could be perceived by some as a dangerous direction to go, but Im placing great emphasis on providing training, to make sure the volunteers are aware of what they can or should do with the cameras, how the imagery can then be processed in modern photogrammetric packages like pi-3000 from Topcon, and what level of data can be generated by this lower-cost approach. For the basic recording of up to two thousand rock art sites, this is perceived as an eVective and appropriate approach. Levin: Id like to address the integration of documentation activity into the conservation process. How well is that being done now? What are the problems with it? Bryan: I have been involved in a number of conservation projects that, in my opinion, have been very successful. One in particular was the documentation of the great medieval nave ceiling at Peterborough Cathedral, where, from the outset, there was communication among all the people involved in the documentation aspects of the projectconservators, archaeologists, architects, analysts, and surveyors. Regular meetings took place, so that any concerns could be fully discussed. Communication within projects is what I would emphasize most. Ive been involved in projects that havent gone so well, and that tends to be because people have not been consulted. Schmid: One of the huge potentials that new information technologies and information management tools oVer us is a better way to communicate and share our results. That means establishing
1 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

project-based Internet or Intranet sites. This really helps to integrate documentation into the conservation process by making the information available online to all who are authorized to receive it. Eppich: Some people dont know exactly what products some of these documentation methods will provide. Do you think you have to manage expectations too? Bryan: I could go back to a word that I usedsuccessful. I said that the Peterborough Cathedral documentation was successful. Thats my perception of it. However, how do you gauge whether documentation has been both successful and eVective? Its really the people who manage the projects that need to make that judgment. Schmid: Multidisciplinary cooperation in conservation projects is an old idea, but it rarely really works. For me, what often happens is that everybody documents their proper part of the project, but theres rarely an integration or correlation of data, a real interdisciplinary exchange and evaluation, which is, from a conservation point of view, an absolute requirement for a successful project. Addison: Communication is key. I would say that communication has three phases. First, communication before you start, so that the needs are really understood. Second, communication during. This is a ripe area for the technology developersfor example, finding a way for the surveyor to communicate his data to the photographer while capturing it, or for the photographer to link what hes capturing to the archaeologist, so that in the field or during the recording process, there is communication among all players. Finally, after the recording is done, there needs to be an information management system. In many projects there are nascent information management systems, but I look forward to the day when there is a global database of all projects that can be cross-referenced and cross-indexed so that multiple people can share and communicate their results together in a global archive that will have longevity beyond individual project lives.

Photo: Courtesy of Werner Schmid

Levin: What I hear all of you saying is that while documentation is a field that relies a good deal on technology and equipment, what matters is the human quality and guidelines, which are not tool based. Communication, integration, the multidisciplinary approachthese seem to be the themes of this conversation. Whether youre working in a country that has access to everything or working in one that only has the most basic tools, you can fail in both places or succeed in both places. In either instance, you need guidelines that are understood and followed, and good communication from the beginning of a project among all members of the team. Bryan: Yes, definitely. For example, the data is dependent upon the quality fed into it. Of course, only people can make the judgment Eppich: Is it a problem to communicate during a project? In projects that Ive worked on, if I send any data during, it sometimes creates problems because its not finished, and people make judgments on it before Ive included certain aspects. Addison: Its very tricky because if you try to share outside the field, you have problems from those back in the oYce saying, well, that doesnt look complete. But even in the field its challenging, because there is a lot of information thats needed and that people want. Theres an enormous amount of communication that needs to happen in the field. Levin: What about the potential for taking the data that is collected, and manipulating it in new and different ways that provide additional insight into the problems and the solutions that might be involved in the conservation project? Addison: There are wonderful modeling systems, but again, I think its not as much the technology as the people. It really comes down to the people and the knowledge of the professionals and how much of that gets there. We can get more and more photorealistic reconstruction, but more important is explaining the basis of the interpretation. What typically seems missing from these interpretations is documentation of the documentationan explanation of how they got to this conclusion. Its not as much the technologyits down to us, the people, informing, marking, and explaining everything we do so that someone can understand it at a later stage. Schmid: From my experience, to get to real, significant results in investigation projects requires the correlation of too many diVerent parameterspartly scientific, partly technical or graphical or whatever. A computer cannot do the same job as a human mind in these cases. A computer might help, but in the end, to really make a good interpretation means to integrate and consider so many diVerent parameters from so many diVerent areas of expertise. At the moment, a computer is unable to do that.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

that its good quality or not. In ten or twenty years, the tools that the documenter uses will undoubtably increase in speed, use 3-d more, and some may even become automated. However, the process will still be based on human involvement in data gathering and input. Levin: Youre saying that in the future, if the documentation itself is to be better, it will be because communication and guidelines are better. Addison: I would like to see the cultural heritage and natural heritage communities united on some guidelines. It would be great to communicate to the makers of digital toolsbe they digital camera or laser scanner manufacturersour needs as a community. They either arent aware of what is needed to make their data useful in the future or they dont have time, or its not easy. One thing that is easy is making it simpler for people to put the metadata onto things so that it can be used and communicated down the road. If manufacturers were approached in a united way and told, look, these things would be useful, its quite easy to add a couple of extra fields to the collecting devices format, which databases from yet other manufacturers could take advantage of. Bryan: Weve mentioned the word metadata. But how many people have actually started using metadata in the sense that it is designed for? In my organization, English Heritage, weve realized that metadata is the crucial element that will make archiving and accessibility to digital imagery possible. As part of this, weve recently been asked to caption every digital image taken, although our initial thought was, thats going to be an enormous amount of work. However, within the latest releases of software such as Adobe Photoshop, the leading image manipulation package, youve now got all the tools together in one box for generating captions and other metadata for digital images, prior to archiving.

15

Addison: Professionals as well as laypeople would be more than happy to provide more data. It just needs to be easier. Were advancing, but we havent advanced in the ability to easily add this metadata and explain what were doing. Thats the next phase for the technology. From a technological point of view, I think it could easily happen. The cultural heritage community needs to communicate to the manufacturers what we need. Eppich: Dont you think that its easy now? You just have to sit down at a computer. From my own experience, I see the issue as enforcement. How do you make people add the metadata? Addison: You can sit down at a computer today, and in a batch mode name all your photos from a project. But thats not easy enough for most people. Most people will put a descriptor on data in the field while theyre recording it if given an easy way. But once they get home, they have so many images sitting on the computer that they dont get around to it. We need to make it easier. And we need to have the ability in the field. Schmid: I have worked for some years on a conservation project of an early medieval church in the Roman Forum. It was excavated in 1900, and we have excellent black-and-white photographs from then that are extremely important references for us. But I am very worried about the long-term preservation and accessibility of our digital data. I dont think that archives and heritage agencies are prepared, at least in Italy, for the active maintenance that must be guaranteed. We already have some examples of digital documentation of wall painting conservation projectsnow digital garbageproduced in the late 1980s with a huge amount of money and eVort. Addison: Its an enormous problem. Some of the first-generation laser scanner companies, for example, no longer exist, and youve got data in a proprietary format. Assuming that you can find data on the mediumdisk, tape, et ceterathat is still readable, how do you open that data? And assuming you can get it oV the medium, in what format is it? Is it understandable? With enough time and money, a programmer can probably decode it, but at an unrealistic cost. And, as Werner said, old photographic archives have more longevity today than most digital data. Levin: This, of course, is an enormous issue that aVects a variety of fields across the board, not simply documentation. Addison: It impacts libraries and museums. Im sure everyone in the cultural heritage community is thinking about it, but its just sitting there, a looming, growing problem. Schmid: Producing documentation that hopefully will still be accessible in one hundred years time or more.

Addison: Yes. We started with the premise that one of the reasons were documenting is to preserve the historic record. Levin: What can the field do to protect this information, at least for the moment, since there is no immediate solution to the problem of long-term storage of digital information? Bryan: As Alonzo suggested, representatives of the cultural heritage community need to encourage manufacturers development to make sure our heritage requirements are considered at an early stage. Some of the manufacturers perceive cultural heritage as an interesting application, but because it tends not to have as much money associated with it as other applications might enjoy, it doesnt drive their development. Another issue my organization is starting to understand is how can we archive digital data properly? In the United Kingdom, theres an organization called the Archaeology Data Service that is taking the lead in developing ways of archiving digital data related to archaeological projects. They typically receive documentation data on a cd, download it onto a hard disk and then dispose of the original cd, as they say the modern hard disk is an easier way to manage, update, and back up the data. We havent yet come up with a solution on how to archive laser-scanned data, but weve got projects, like Heritage3d, that are currently looking into this. Im sure solutions will come along, but we need to communicate and disseminate them to make sure that when people are putting a project together, they consider the archive issuethe archive tends to be at the very end of a project, so it tends not to get much initial thoughtto ensure that the products of documentation are usable in twenty to fifty years time. This must be a priority in project planning. Addison: Im currently working on an initiative to address this. If we just rely on the technology developers to come up with something, that wont be enough. Working with unesco on redoing their information systems has made it apparent that there needs to be a shared global archive. The only real solution is to use the power of the Internet and large-scale databases to make some sort of communal archive where the costs of data upgrading and maintenance can be shared. People are told that cds will last thirty years, so they think theyre safe. But theres much more to it than that. The only way is to band together.

1

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 Dialogue

From Silk Road to Digital Domain

Managing Information for a Wall Paintings Conservation Project
By Lorinda Wong
Three-dimensional small-scale model of the interior of Cave 5, with overlaid line drawings of the paintings and graphic condition documentation. Condition mapping of this kind helped project members to visualize and understand patterns of deterioration throughout the cave. Photo: Lorinda Wong. Model fabrication: Rick Miller.

H
solutions.

How does a conservation project that spans many years and involves numerous experts from various disciplines manage all the data a project of this scale inevitably generates? A collaboration between the Getty Conservation Institute and the Dunhuang Academy provides insight into the complexity of the issues of information management, illustrating problems, as well as some Since 1997 the two institutions have worked together to conserve the wall paintings in Cave 85 of the Mogao Grottoes, a Buddhist cave temple site situated along the ancient Silk Road in northwestern China (see Conservation, vol. 14, no. 2). The goal of the project is to identify and understand the causes and mechanisms of deterioration of the wall paintings and to design strategies and implement conservation actions that can preserve the paintings. The eight-year project has involved experts from many fields, including wall paintings conservators, environmental scientists, analytical chemists, geologists, and art historians. Each of these disciplines has generated vast amounts of information. As a result, methods of information managementthe collection, organization, storage, retrieval, integration, manipulation, and presentation of multidisciplinary datadeveloped out of necessity and grew into an important component of the project. The challenge was to establish a data management system that would work across disciplines, facilitating access to project information by team members and thereby

promoting the integration and use of multidisciplinary data, which was essential in guiding the projects work. Information management has become an increasingly important topic in recent yearsthe subject of conferences and colloquia, including the 2005 American Institute for Conservation annual meeting, The Documentation Dilemma: Managing Conservation Data in the 21st Centurymainly because of the growing role of information management, the introduction and wide acceptance of digital photography, and the continued dependence on computers in conservation. Information management has become a discipline in itself within the conservation field. No longer just about file naming and organization, it also includes the thoughtful storing of data that not only involves file retrieval but also oVers the ability to query data and to promote the use and integration of this information. DiVerent types of databases are being developed for the field. Marketed as easy to use, databases facilitate data entry, aid in the organization and storage of digital files and images, and even generate ready-formatted reports at the press of a button. However, one cannot overlook the human role in this process. Nor can we ignore the issues of long-term preservation of digital technologies as we continue to generate increasingly larger amounts of digital data. We need to ensure not only that our software and files are continually updated but also that the systems with which we store information are equally secure. At present, there are no easy solutions.

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 News in Conservation

21

Project team members from the Dunhuang Academy examining the wall paintings and graphically recording their condition. Photo: Francesca Piqu.

Conservators at work on the upper scaffolding lift in Cave 5. Photo: Neville Agnew.

Types of Data

As part of testing and development of conservation interventions, laboratory and in situ testing were thoroughly documented. These eVorts included the comprehensive research and testing of grout formulations for use in treating the detached painted plaster in Cave 85over eighty diVerent grout formulations were subjected to a rigorous series of tests. The actual treatment was also fully documented. With individual conservation interventions almost complete, final postconservation documentation will now be undertaken. Added to all this information is the ever-growing collection of digital images. Straddling the divide between analog and digital technology, the project for the first five years relied on traditional photography, while work since 2003 has been almost exclusively digital. As a result, the amount of electronic data jumped from five gigabytes in 2003 to over twenty-five gigabytes in 2005. This leap is due almost entirely to the storage of digital images, but it also includes thousands of files in various formats: text, data, photography, video, graphic presentation, and drawings. Informationin English and Chineseis generated by staV at both the gci and the Dunhuang Academy, as well as by outside consultants. This accumulation is very much a live body of data. It is constantly evolving as information is updated and altered. The structure and organization of the information are modified as the project develops.
Problems and Solutions

The Cave 85 project data are vast and varied. Initial information gathering resulted in: a project bibliography in hard copy and electronic form; collection of information (such as geological and hydrological data) that might contribute to an understanding of the deterioration found throughout the site; art-historical information on the iconography of the late Tang dynasty wall paintings and sculptures; historical photographs and archival material that reconstruct the physical history of Cave 85 and help in the understanding of the sites history and deterioration; and conservation history to understand previous interventions in Cave 85, as well as general conservation practices at the Mogao Grottoes. Condition recording was undertaken to understand the causes and mechanisms of deterioration of the wall paintings. Recording included a comprehensive photographic survey, an illustrated glossary of condition terms, graphic documentation to map types and distribution of deterioration in the cave, and written reports. The analytical investigation studied the original materials and techniques of the wall paintings, as well as the causes and mechanisms of saltdriven deteriorationin particular, the detachment of the painted plaster, the most serious wall paintings problem in Cave 85. Both noninvasive examination and invasive sampling generated scientific reports and image files and significant amounts of raw data from an array of analytical instrumentation. An environmental investigation monitored the interior microclimate and the exterior climate for the entire length of the project. With individual probes collecting measurements every fifteen minutes, the amount of environmental data gathered is immense.
22 Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 News in Conservation

With so much information being generated, it became increasingly diYcult to retrieve files in a timely manner. In a multiyear project of this nature, with multiple users involved, from diVerent fields, on multiple continentsand with data being produced in two languagesit is diYcult to track who did what when and where it

can be found. The absence of a standardized file naming practice exacerbated the problems, as did the lack of centralized storage of files and the lack of an agreed-upon file organizational structure. Files were often kept on personal computers. Multiple versions of a single file were generated, without indication of when it was modified or by whom. These circumstances led to poor communication among project team members and caused much time to be wasted in locating files and determining their most current versions. The decision to focus attention on information management came late, midway through the project. What was to be done with all of this data? The goal in managing the Cave 85 information was not to develop new ways of dealing with data. Rather, it was to manage the data in a simple, organized, eYcient, and eVective manner that would transcend inevitable developments in software and technology. We simply aimed to collect, organize, and store information in a way that would promote its use during the project. In other words, we focused on the working data rather than on the future archiving of project information, an area that will need to be addressed following the projects completion. A protocol for receiving, storing, and sharing information became the answer. The key to its implementation is best described as a low-tech solutionthe appointment of an information manager, through whom all information now flows. Ideally the information manager is a person with a solid understanding of the project, of the diVerent types of information generated, and of the structure of the project. In the Cave 85 project, the information manager works closely with project team members on: data collection: receiving and monitoring all data from project team members; file naming: renaming files following an agreed-upon convention (including a brief description of the content, metadata on the author, creation date, and file type); storage: storing each file in its appropriate place on a shared folderand not on personal computers (the shared folder is a secure, networked location that allows access to all project members); data sharing: communicating receipt and availability of project information to appropriate team members, including the creation of a parallel database and the identification of an information manager in China to allow for the exchange of critical documents between project partners; retrieval: locating files and helping direct team members to relevant information; and maintenance: maintaining and reorganizing the shared folder and keeping information current.
Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 News in Conservation

Page from a sample report used to share information among project team members.

A visual display of salt survey results from the west wall of Cave 5. The survey established the distribution of soluble salts throughout the cave at four incremental depths into the surface of the plaster. The pattern of deterioration directly correlates with survey results that show a higher salt content in the plaster toward the west end of the cave.

23

Information management is not the job of the information manager alone but is also the responsibility of every team member. The system requires continuous attention and maintenance and relies heavily on human accuracy and commitment. It only works if the entire team practices great discipline.
Integration, Manipulation, and Presentation

microcores were then analyzed to identify the presence of soluble ions of salts , as well as to assess their distribution. The results were not easily recognized. Instead, the data was visually presented topographically to correlate analytical with conservation data. The locations of the microcores were superimposed over the condition recordings, which were in the form of cad drawings showing areas of loss of the painted plaster. Each microcore was correlated with a data table showing the main soluble ions divided by incremental depth. This type of plotting, which was done for all areas, clearly revealed the enrichment of salts toward the west end of the cave, in comparison to the east end. The visual display established a direct correlation between the salt content of the plaster and the condition of the wall paintings.
What Was Learned

Accessible data alone does not move a project forward. Interpretation demands a complete view of the data. To understand the whole story, the data must be integrated, with trends discovered by one discipline informing the picture formed by other disciplines. The thoughtful integration of multidisciplinary data and subsequent interpretation by the project team help guide decision making. To provide meaning and context, data may also need to be manipulated and visually presented. It is hard to discern trends from raw data produced by analytical and environmental investigations, let alone use it for deriving conclusions. There is a need to visually display these types of data in a significant, meaningful, and understandable manner to aid in its interpretation. For instance, scientific data generated from the comprehensive sampling investigation was placed in individual sample reports created by both the conservation and the analytical teams. Each report is a document containing all information related to a single sample. This report includes description of the sample, sample location, sampling rationale, and results of analytical investigation. Sample reports were placed in the shared folder so that the scientific and conservation teams could easily share information. As an example of the integration and visual presentation of data, the diagnostic initiative included investigation into salts as the main cause of deterioration in Cave 85. As part of this inquiry, a comprehensive salt survey was undertaken, in which tiny microcores of plaster were carefully carved out of the upper ten millimeters of plaster at selected locations throughout the caveareas where there were already losses of the paint layer. Forty-seven microcores were taken, each at four or five incremental depths into the painting strata, resulting in nearly two hundred samples. The
The central ceiling panel of Cave 5, showing a lion surrounded by decorative lotus patterns. Photo: Francesca Piqu.

In the context of the Cave 85 projectmost known for its project methodology, scientific research, environmental control measures, and development and application of innovative conservation treatmentinformation management has been demonstrated to be an integral and essential component of the conservation process. An important lesson learned from the project is that information management needs to be integrated into the conservation process from start to finish, with commitment from the entire project team. An information management plan from the beginning of the project would have supported the allocation of appropriate resources and time throughout the course of the work. As a result of the late start and an initial hesitation in dedicating the necessary resources to managing information, there was little time for cleaning up existing data or for exercising tighter control in the collection of incoming information. The eventual archiving of project data which will involve distinguishing essential from nonessential project information for the futuretherefore remains a big task. The tardy start also prevented pursuit of information management tools that, in hindsight, would have been advantageous, such as using a searchable database for entering the results of the analytical investigation. However, it is never too late to begin to manage project information. The management of information during the last half of the Cave 85 project happened during a crucial period of multidisciplinary research and investigation, testing and development, and implementation of conservation work. The relatively simple solutions of naming an information manager and of instituting a data protocol proved eVective for facilitating data exchange and for promoting the use of information among professionals from diVerent fieldsessential components for moving the project forward.
Lorinda Wong is an associate project specialist with the GCI and the information manager for the project in Cave 85.

2

Conservation, The GCI Newsletter Volume 20, Number 3 2005 News in Conservation